- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:07:49 +0100
- To: Fabian Ritzmann <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
- Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
On Aug 25, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Fabian Ritzmann wrote: > > Hi Bijan, > > Are you aware of Anne Anderson's work? She's designed a simple > language that is compatible with WS-Policy and seems to fit your > requirements: We both presented at a workshop at WWW in Japan, so we know each other's work :) > http://research.sun.com/projects/xacml/ > > I'd suggest this paper for a quick introduction: > > http://research.sun.com/projects/xacml/POLICY06_paper.pdf As I understand it, Anne's work (and XACML) addresses how to define the *assertions* in a common, evaluable, language. It's not clear to me that one can (easily) infer equivalence, for example, and one certainly can't do that if the equivalence is "semantic", that is, in the sense of saying that either of two distinct conditions "means" the same thing. So, I think even there, having the ability to equate or relate assertions can be quite useful. In the context where the truth of the assertion is determined entirely out of band (as in WS-Policy), then it seems even more helpful. The big advantage is being able to reason with policies even if one can't poke into an assertion. But perhaps I'm wrong about Anne's work? I'll drop her a note pointing to this dicusssion. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 25 August 2006 17:07:48 UTC